From The Nation
If it is wrong for Republicans to fuel their campaigns with corporate cash, then it is wrong for Democrats to do so.
That was the no-hold-barred message that Russ Feingold brought to Netroots Nation.
"Sometimes we have to be very direct with the Democratic Party
itself," the former senator from Wisconsin told the thousands of
bloggers, thinkers and activists who packed the great hall at the
Minneapolis Convention Center. "I fear the Democratic Party is in danger
of losing its identity."
Feingold was talking about the decision by some Democrats that the
party must form so-called "super-PACS" -- political action committees that
use corporate money in much the same way that Republicans have.
If Democrats fuel their campaigns with corporate cash, the senator said, "we'll lose our souls."
"I don't just think it's wrong. I think it's a dumb strategy," he
continued, to the enthusiastic crowd hushed and listening to a speech
that went far beyond the standard rhetoric of this pre-presidential
election year. "Democrats should never be in the business of taking
unlimited corporate money." It's dancing with the devil." [The voters]
will see us as corporate-lite."
Anyone who thought they were going to hear a feel-good speech from Russ Feingold got a surprise.
The former senator from Wisconsin, long a favorite of the progressive
blogosphere, did not come to suggest that all the world's problems were
caused by awful Republicans or that all the solutions would come from
Democrats.
Click Here to Read Whole Article
The fiercely independent Democrat, who cast the sole vote against
Patriot Act and took the lead in opposing the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, may have made a name for himself fighting the worst
excesses of the Bush administration. But he was never a yes-man for the
Obama administration. Feingold cast a relatively lonely vote against
making Tim Geithner the secretary of the Treasury, and an even more
lonely vote against banking reforms that failed to address the threat
posed by "too-big-to-fail" banks. And he fought Bill Clinton, George
Bush and Barack Obama on trade policy.
Feingold's speech was framed around the Citizens United ruling
by the US Supreme Court, which struck down legislative barriers to
corporate spending on campaigns. He decried the court's 5-4 ruling as he
has since it was issued last year a "lawless decision" that "overturned
more than one hundred years of statutes and case law" designed to keep
special-interest money out of politics.
His deeper message, however, was a call to action for progressives to
practice a politics of principle rather than simple partisanship -- a
theme that is central to the work of the national reform group he leads,
Progressive United.
Yes, he argued, Barack Obama should be reelected in 2012. Yes, he hopes
that Democrats make a comeback after the devastating 2010 election
cycle that cost him his Senate seat and cost his party control of the US
House and governorships across the country.
But, he warned, a victory-at-any-cost approach will cost the party
the credibility it needs to attract Americans who are disgusted by
political corruption -- and yield little in the way of progress.
Decrying the failures of the Obama administration on issues ranging
from bank regulation to tax policy to trade agreements, he urged
progressives -- especially progressive bloggers, who have become such a
powerful influence in the party -- "to call out Republicans and Democrats"
who fail to stand for reform.
Feingold's was not an Obama trashing speech, however. It was an Obama prodding speech.
He urged bloggers to cheer the president on if Obama issues an
executive order requiring government contractors to reveal their
campaign contributions -- a move the White House is considering.
Next Page 1 | 2
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
John Nichols, a pioneering political blogger, has written the Online Beat since 1999. His posts have been circulated internationally, quoted in numerous books and mentioned in debates on the floor of Congress.
Nichols writes about (more...)